Party CEO predicts banks/ processors to leave US IG w/i 60 days [Archive]

BluffTHIS!

10-20-2006, 06:11 AM

While what he says may or may not come true, it is clear that he is using this issue as propaganda to prop up his stock and tell the investment community that it's not so bad that party is no longer #1. If stars/FT and others find alternate depositing methods assuming neteller isn't there for that, then neteller can still legally function for fast withdrawals as it does now as the law doesn't prevent them from providing that function. So as long as players don't mind a short delay in funding their accounts and can still get faster withdrawals, then stars/FT et. al. will continue to grow and prosper at party's expense assuming they don't flip flop on americans, which as private companies they aren't as likely to. And even if stars/FT should in the future not be willing to be in the US market, then sports sites like Bodog probably will be so willing assuming as seems likely, that the funding prohibitions of the IUGE won't be enough to stop determined bettors and players.

The bottom line is that party is pissed that private poker sites aren't throwing their lot in with them and forgoing this opportunity to grow at their expense. Tough [censored] for party.

RiverMustelid

10-20-2006, 06:35 AM

Buying party stock? That is a very risky investment indeed. The valuation is dependent on continuation of rest of world players. I've noticed a lot have already started to switch, and I'm in transition too.

Because of terrible customer service loyalty is very low. Sites rely on a network affect, if numbers drop they can spiral down.

I'm considering shorting party.

Our House

10-20-2006, 07:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If stars/FT and others find alternate depositing methods assuming neteller isn't there for that, then neteller can still legally function for fast withdrawals as it does now as the law doesn't prevent them from providing that function.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legally, yes. But AFAIK, Neteller only gets paid for deposits and makes $0.00 from withdrawals.

If they were to leave the market, it's highly doubtful that they would continue to service US customers on a withdrawal-only basis.

BluffTHIS!

10-20-2006, 07:07 AM

The sites will pay the fees. Or we will.

Our House

10-20-2006, 07:13 AM

There are currently no fees associated. Neteller will just have extra "paperwork" to do for an entire group of players who provide no potential income for them.

If you're saying that they will offer this withdrawal service with a newly associated fee, then I agree that it's a possibility.

BluffTHIS!

10-20-2006, 07:23 AM

That's what I meant. If Neteller sees a market for cashouts only, then obviously they will have to charge for them.

JPFisher55

10-20-2006, 10:38 AM

They could go bankrupt.

Guthrie

10-20-2006, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If stars/FT and others find alternate depositing methods assuming neteller isn't there for that, then neteller can still legally function for fast withdrawals as it does now as the law doesn't prevent them from providing that function.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legally, yes. But AFAIK, Neteller only gets paid for deposits and makes $0.00 from withdrawals.

If they were to leave the market, it's highly doubtful that they would continue to service US customers on a withdrawal-only basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would happily pay a reasonable fee to withdraw from a reliable company rather than trusting large sums to a shady operator.

gonebroke

10-20-2006, 11:02 AM

The CEO is right. Firepay and Neteller are bailing. A company that handles echecks is also bailing, their stock trades on the Nasdaq and took a 15% hit last week. I forgot the ticker symbol.

dragonystic

10-20-2006, 11:25 AM

Why would Neteller pull out now? The bill has already been signed, and they didn't bail. So what is going to change for them in the next 30-60 days?

oreopimp

10-20-2006, 11:29 AM

hasnt pstars already planned for this? I thought that was one of the reasons for them taking so long with their desicion...finding backups essentially. correct?

247boss

10-20-2006, 11:33 AM

as the CEO of party he should be focused on party, they decided to leave the US, we dont need to hear him weeks later predicting the sites that have remained in the US's future......

the reality is they left and thats all they should be concerened with

this guy is a real POS.......poor shareholders

Dunkman

10-20-2006, 11:33 AM

First, it should be obvious that Party's CEO doesn't know [censored] about US laws or how the govt. here works, judging by the way they handled fighting the legislation, and their immediate pullout. I mean, what do we expect him to say? "Uhh, since FTP and Stars can still operate in the US, and we can't, we're now a distant third, and it's getting worse by the day. We're pretty much [censored], and I don't know what to do aside from try to scare people to stop playing at those sites."

gumpzilla

10-20-2006, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
While what he says may or may not come true, it is clear that he is using this issue as propaganda to prop up his stock and tell the investment community that it's not so bad that party is no longer #1. If stars/FT and others find alternate depositing methods assuming neteller isn't there for that, then neteller can still legally function for fast withdrawals as it does now as the law doesn't prevent them from providing that function.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then why is Firepay doing this?

[ QUOTE ]

Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are people so confident Neteller will continue to accept withdrawals? Can somebody point me to analysis that wasn't done by a random 2+2er that suggests that the law doesn't affect withdrawals at all, or that the banks aren't likely to put in regulations that affect withdrawals just to be safe, regardless of what the law says?

fatshaft

10-20-2006, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
hasnt pstars already planned for this? I thought that was one of the reasons for them taking so long with their desicion...finding backups essentially. correct?

[/ QUOTE ]finding a new bank was the reason I believe after RBS decided they wouldnt back any decision to accept US money

aces_full

10-20-2006, 11:51 AM

Anyone else notice that since the new law went into effect that Party no longer displays how many players are online? They also pulled thier live player count from the partypoker.com website. Guess they don't want us to see that their traffic dropped from 80K to 20K players during peak times.

Ace upmy Slv

10-20-2006, 12:33 PM

I did notice that the other day as I spent almost all of my Party Points on crap points store items. I thought it was pretty funny too, not to display the amount of players. They used to emphasize it, LOL.

Anyone giving odds on whether I get all the stuff sent to me that I spent my Party Points on? Especially the magazines......

adios

10-20-2006, 12:49 PM

So what am I supposed to do? Quit playing immediately or something.

Gomez

10-20-2006, 02:12 PM

When CEO's speak I don't listen.

Unless they are giving bad news. I have lost considerable money listening to CEO's of a sinking ship say everything looks great.

4_2_it

10-20-2006, 02:22 PM

So the CEO of Party is predicting that he expects some future events will validate Party's decision to abandon the US? What else would anyone expect him to say? He has to placate his shareholders.

I'm not saying he is wrong. I have no idea or opinion on that matter.

However, I would not consider him to be a spokesman for Neteller, Pokerstars, Full Tilt or anyone else who is still doing business in the US.

NoMeansYes_

10-20-2006, 02:24 PM

Think about it. The US Government is about to come down hard on sites taking US bets while Party has quickly cut out Americans and started focusing on attracting new players from europe/asia. If you think of this long term, I think this could potentially make Party bigger then it ever has before.

addictontilt

10-20-2006, 02:50 PM

CEO's first rule of thumb...protect stock price...whatever it takes, that is the ONLY interest they have

breaktwister

10-20-2006, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
CEO's first rule of thumb...protect stock price...whatever it takes, that is the ONLY interest they have

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - yes Party's CEO did a great job protecting their stock price.

Everyone seems to agree that the only reason Party pulled out so quickly was because they are publicly traded and to not adhere to US laws may have contridicted some of the Stock Exhange rules (or something like this).

Its strange given that the new bill doesnt actually change the legallity of online poker - if wasn't illegal before it isnt now etc etc etc.

Party could easily have took this stance with the Stock Exchange or whoever else's "rules" they were worried about as a public company. Way to protect stock price CEO!

HSB

10-20-2006, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it. The US Government is about to come down hard on sites taking US bets while Party has quickly cut out Americans and started focusing on attracting new players from europe/asia. If you think of this long term, I think this could potentially make Party bigger then it ever has before.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize it's entirely possible that there is a new administration in place before there is anything to enforce?

It's about nine months before we see the regulations. Depending on how invasive they are, it could take years to implement.

HIPAA was signed in 1996. I was personally working on implementing it in 2002 and it wasn't done when I left.

Now the Wanker Bill is unlikely to be that invasive but if they are actually going to try to make the banks examine every ACH transaction and every paper check then it will be pretty damn invasive and take a long, long time to implement by which time we'll likely have a completely new administration and unless the numbers change it won't be one that panders to the religious right.

gonebroke

10-20-2006, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CEO's first rule of thumb...protect stock price...whatever it takes, that is the ONLY interest they have

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - yes Party's CEO did a great job protecting their stock price.

Everyone seems to agree that the only reason Party pulled out so quickly was because they are publicly traded and to not adhere to US laws may have contridicted some of the Stock Exhange rules (or something like this).

Its strange given that the new bill doesnt actually change the legallity of online poker - if wasn't illegal before it isnt now etc etc etc.

Party could easily have took this stance with the Stock Exchange or whoever else's "rules" they were worried about as a public company. Way to protect stock price CEO!

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moron. You are thinking with your heart and emotion instead of your brain (if you have one). What company would leave the lucrative American market if they did not have to? FTP and PS are feeding you lies to keep you in the game. You as a player will not get in trouble playing their, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

HSB

10-20-2006, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CEO's first rule of thumb...protect stock price...whatever it takes, that is the ONLY interest they have

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - yes Party's CEO did a great job protecting their stock price.

Everyone seems to agree that the only reason Party pulled out so quickly was because they are publicly traded and to not adhere to US laws may have contridicted some of the Stock Exhange rules (or something like this).

Its strange given that the new bill doesnt actually change the legallity of online poker - if wasn't illegal before it isnt now etc etc etc.

Party could easily have took this stance with the Stock Exchange or whoever else's "rules" they were worried about as a public company. Way to protect stock price CEO!

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a moron. You are thinking with your heart and emotion instead of your brain (if you have one). What company would leave the lucrative American market if they did not have to? FTP and PS are feeding you lies to keep you in the game. You as a player will not get in trouble playing their, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think the feds are actually going to go knocking at their doors? This bill was all about political posturing and not about actually getting something done.

Synergistic Explosions

10-20-2006, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the Isle of Mannians attack them with pitch forks and drive them off the island.

NapoleonDolemite

10-20-2006, 03:37 PM

4_2_it

10-20-2006, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

When exactly did the feds get the authority to enforce US laws in foreign countries?

If they already have it, why aren't they in China arresting those who are openly violating US trademark and patent law? Why aren't they in Amsterdam arresting prostitutes and drug selling coffee house owners?

Nikoms

10-20-2006, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think about it. The US Government is about to come down hard on sites taking US bets while Party has quickly cut out Americans and started focusing on attracting new players from europe/asia. If you think of this long term, I think this could potentially make Party bigger then it ever has before.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Losing U.S. players will never be a benefit to Party. They lost almost 80% of their business. Party's stock might go up again one day, but as far as being the top poker site in the world? Those days are over now that people have tried other sites

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, Party's bonuses were great - and with the competition, it was a breeze to clear decent bonuses and make good coin in the process, but there's a portion of their business that they have likely lost for good. Their all-too-quick "screw the US players" attitude will leave a bad taste for many - myself included...

...oh crap, was I one of the fish???

Wake up CALL

10-20-2006, 03:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When exactly did the feds get the authority to enforce US laws in foreign countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

On Americans, the answer is always since our Union was formed.

On foreigners, have you ever heard of extradition?

Yes I know they will not extradite someone for operating an overseas poker site but you get the point I hope.

HSB

10-20-2006, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When exactly did the feds get the authority to enforce US laws in foreign countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

On Americans, the answer is always since our Union was formed.

On foreigners, have you ever heard of extradition?

Yes I know they will not extradite someone for operating an overseas poker site but you get the point I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they aren't going to extradite for operating a poker site then what exactly is the point?

Leader

10-20-2006, 04:09 PM

Wake up CALL

10-20-2006, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When exactly did the feds get the authority to enforce US laws in foreign countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

On Americans, the answer is always since our Union was formed.

On foreigners, have you ever heard of extradition?

Yes I know they will not extradite someone for operating an overseas poker site but you get the point I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they aren't going to extradite for operating a poker site then what exactly is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just answered the question asked which implied that it couldn't or hasn't been done in the past which is clearly not the case.

247boss

10-20-2006, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However, I would not consider him to be a spokesman for Neteller, Pokerstars, Full Tilt or anyone else who is still doing business in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said

ericicecream

10-20-2006, 05:04 PM

I imagine they would have their passorts revoked and shipped back home. If the Manx (Isle of Mannians) have any jails, I imagine these DOJ people are likely to be in them.

U.S. law does not rule the world, I don't know why people keep thinking it does.

MiltonFriedman

10-20-2006, 05:08 PM

They have $132 million to cover $192 million in player liability and 90% of their players are going to cash out.

Their $500 million credit facility was cancelled,

Things can get worse quickly for the shareholders. (I am NOT saying that the Company is going to fold, not by a longshot ... However, I think distressed debt of Party, if available publicly at a steep discount, might be way better to make a bet here than investing in common equity.)

ericicecream

10-20-2006, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

On Americans, the answer is always since our Union was formed.

On foreigners, have you ever heard of extradition?

[/ QUOTE ]

British citizen visits U.S. and kills someone here then returns to Britain, he will be extradited.

I go to Britain and buy a Cuban cigar, the store owner will not be extradited, not because it is a lesser crime, but because he didn't commit any crime. I will not be prosecuted, because I did not commit any crime.

Do you see the difference?

Wake up CALL

10-20-2006, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, where did I imply cigar salesmen were being extradited?

CORed

10-20-2006, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If stars/FT and others find alternate depositing methods assuming neteller isn't there for that, then neteller can still legally function for fast withdrawals as it does now as the law doesn't prevent them from providing that function.

[/ QUOTE ]
Legally, yes. But AFAIK, Neteller only gets paid for deposits and makes $0.00 from withdrawals.

If they were to leave the market, it's highly doubtful that they would continue to service US customers on a withdrawal-only basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on. They could easily start charging a fee for withdrawals.

joeker

10-20-2006, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the Isle of Mannians attack them with pitch forks and drive them off the island.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...holy crap that's funny

wpr101

10-20-2006, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
First, it should be obvious that Party's CEO doesn't know [censored] about US laws or how the govt. here works, judging by the way they handled fighting the legislation, and their immediate pullout. I mean, what do we expect him to say? "Uhh, since FTP and Stars can still operate in the US, and we can't, we're now a distant third, and it's getting worse by the day. We're pretty much [censored], and I don't know what to do aside from try to scare people to stop playing at those sites."

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, nh sir.

JOHNY CA$H

10-20-2006, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

When exactly did the feds get the authority to enforce US laws in foreign countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

With the introduction of the pre-emptive strike doctrine... /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Osprey

10-20-2006, 10:19 PM

What about people like Lederer who help run (does he own any part of) Full Tilt? I think Full Tilt pros can be gotten to rather easily.

ericicecream

10-20-2006, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, where did I imply cigar salesmen were being extradited?

[/ QUOTE ]

You implied that someone in a foreign country, abiding by that foreign country's law, who is providing a service to a u.s. customer, should be extradited if that service is not allowed by u.s. law.

Sand

10-21-2006, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You as a player will not get in trouble playing their, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think

http://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/WickerMan/WickerMan.jpg

Sniper

10-21-2006, 01:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else notice that since the new law went into effect that Party no longer displays how many players are online? They also pulled thier live player count from the partypoker.com website. Guess they don't want us to see that their traffic dropped from 80K to 20K players during peak times.

[/ QUOTE ]

They pulled the number of players data immediately after the bill was signed.

This was addressed in the conference call, and Party's explanation was that they were comfortable presenting user numbers when the playing field was level, but now that its not, they don't want to for competitive reasons.

fwiw, the total player numbers diplayed by the sites are pretty meaningless anyway... the numbers from pokersitescout (for ring games) and thepokerdb (for MTTs) are much more useful. You can follow our analysis of the numbers in the Official Tracking thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7666067) .

Leader

10-21-2006, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else notice that since the new law went into effect that Party no longer displays how many players are online? They also pulled thier live player count from the partypoker.com website. Guess they don't want us to see that their traffic dropped from 80K to 20K players during peak times.

[/ QUOTE ]

They pulled the number of players data immediately after the bill was signed.

This was addressed in the conference call, and Party's explanation was that they were comfortable presenting user numbers when the playing field was level, but now that its not, they don't want to for competitive reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol that's so pathetic

Sniper

10-21-2006, 02:16 AM

They also claimed that their user numbers were still #1 during peak european hours.

The conf call is available on replay for anyone interested.

Phil153

10-21-2006, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They pulled the number of players data immediately after the bill was signed.

This was addressed in the conference call, and Party's explanation was that they were comfortable presenting user numbers when the playing field was level, but now that its not, they don't want to for competitive reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol that's so pathetic

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the worst of it. Party has blocked the name of any other site from chat. Words like "star" and "ultimate" come out as XXXX. If you say "ace of clubs" it comes out like this:

ace of clXXs (i.e. ub is the intials for ultimate bet)

Pretty funny.

Back on topic, Party's European numbers are pretty impressive. Once their marketing shifts there I think we'll see a steady increase in numbers. It's a huge growth market.

Sniper

10-21-2006, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They have $132 million to cover $192 million in player liability and 90% of their players are going to cash out.

Their $500 million credit facility was cancelled,

Things can get worse quickly for the shareholders. (I am NOT saying that the Company is going to fold, not by a longshot ... However, I think distressed debt of Party, if available publicly at a steep discount, might be way better to make a bet here than investing in common equity.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Milton, that analysis was on old data... after accounting for all player liabilities and the minimal drawdown they had on their credit facility... Party still has positive cash of $83 million...

The $500 million credit facility was not cancelled, the banks agreed to a 60 day period to reevaluate and review Party's new financial position.

Sniper

10-21-2006, 05:58 AM

One other note on Party CEO's comments...

It is important to evaluate his comments in context. Garber came to Party from FireOne (ie Firepay), meaning he knows the payment processing industry. He has also had discussions with all of Party's payment processors, which have confirmed to him that most will be pulling out of the US in the near future.

His comments should not to be dismissed out of hand, as posturing.

excession

10-21-2006, 11:09 AM

I find it very dubious that they don't keep player money in separate trust accounts to be honest - I never keep more than a few 100 $ in Party for that reason whilst I'm happy to keep $1000's in Stars

chezlaw

10-21-2006, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Back on topic, Party's European numbers are pretty impressive. Once their marketing shifts there I think we'll see a steady increase in numbers. It's a huge growth market.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they may struggle. They've alienated so many of the high volume and savvy players that without their huge fish base they desperately need to generate new european players, but these players are far more likely to play at huge dependable 'won't steal your money or go bust' organisations like ladbrokes, Victor Chandler etc

There's a good reason for keeping your regular and best customers happy during the good times. Now they can enjoy the trial of surviving the bad times without us.

They're not that competent either, they haven't even bothered to contact the old european regulars to see why we don't play there any more.

chez

MrHenry

10-21-2006, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think they may struggle. They've alienated so many of the high volume and savvy players that without their huge fish base they desperately need to generate new european players, but these players are far more likely to play at huge dependable 'won't steal your money or go bust' organisations like ladbrokes, Victor Chandler etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to move my bankroll to Ladbrokes when the Americans were banned because the only reason I ever played Party was the fish and I assumed they would be no more. Also as you say there is the question of trust as well.

Maybe I'm just running well but my winnings have never been better since the bill was signed. It appears that not only are there just as many European, Australian and Candian fish but we have lost many of the good players who kept my win rate down.

OK deep down I know it is just variance, we are talking abour ~2000 hands, but I've decided to stick with Party for the time being.

xerxesthegod

10-21-2006, 05:54 PM

I used to think like you. But now I'm moving to Fulltilt.

fish2plus2

10-22-2006, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
While what he says may or may not come true, it is clear that he is using this issue as propaganda to prop up his stock and tell the investment community that it's not so bad that party is no longer #1. If stars/FT and others find alternate depositing methods assuming neteller isn't there for that, then neteller can still legally function for fast withdrawals as it does now as the law doesn't prevent them from providing that function. So as long as players don't mind a short delay in funding their accounts and can still get faster withdrawals, then stars/FT et. al. will continue to grow and prosper at party's expense assuming they don't flip flop on americans, which as private companies they aren't as likely to. And even if stars/FT should in the future not be willing to be in the US market, then sports sites like Bodog probably will be so willing assuming as seems likely, that the funding prohibitions of the IUGE won't be enough to stop determined bettors and players.

The bottom line is that party is pissed that private poker sites aren't throwing their lot in with them and forgoing this opportunity to grow at their expense. Tough [censored] for party.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Neteller stops allowing you to deposit into IG, than they will likely stop allowing you to withdraw to them also, ala firepay.

Megenoita

10-22-2006, 05:09 PM

So what do you recommend? How should we treat our money right now, and in the near future?

whangarei

10-22-2006, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So what do you recommend? How should we treat our money right now, and in the near future?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now no changes. If (when?) Neteller leaves US, there will be no problems getting whatever money you have in there out. I think the point is they will probably not remain open just so you can tranfer from PokerSite -> Neteller -> CheckingAccount.

DeeJ

10-23-2006, 12:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the Manx people attack them with pitch forks and drive them off the island.

[/ QUOTE ]

see, people and things from the Isle of Man are 'Manx'.

Isle Of Man (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3197207)

you're welcome /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Synergistic Explosions

10-23-2006, 04:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
, but what happens when the feds and DOJ go knocking on their doors? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the Manx people attack them with pitch forks and drive them off the island.

[/ QUOTE ]

see, people and things from the Isle of Man are 'Manx'.

Isle Of Man (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3197207)

you're welcome /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So they are an Isle of Cats?

dragonystic

12-20-2006, 09:24 AM

*bump*

I almost forgot about this thread. But today is 2 full months. And I didn't want this prediction to be wrong and not have people remember.

Neteller looks like they'll be here atleast until the regs hit(*crossesfingers*)...and Party once again looks semi-clueless.

SlapPappy

12-20-2006, 11:16 AM

Nice.

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2006, 11:43 AM

If he had said 270 days he might have had a better shot of being right, as we still haven't seen the full effect of the legislation and won't until all the regs have been written.

But Mitch Garber was also just spinning and trying to damage his competitors who remained in the US market, which he resents bitterly, as he somehow feels that they should all be in the same boat. If he and the largest stockholders of party hadn't already "made theirs", they would take the company private again and be able to compete again.

SlapPappy

12-20-2006, 12:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If he and the largest stockholders of party hadn't already "made theirs", they would take the company private again and be able to compete again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they are waiting for the U.S. regulations to consider this? Long shot but maybe.

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2006, 01:04 PM

BTW, here's a link to a short CP mag news item (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_law/article/1711) on party's profits post US ban and gives the following stats:

Poker proftis pre US ban: 2.7 Million a day
Poker profits post ban: 740K a day now up from 640K/day immediately after the ban
Hit to earnings: 2M/day

But here's a funny one in an excerpt near the end:

PartyGaming also introduced a new acronym to the world in its release: EMEA. EMEA represents PartyGaming’s future as its most important market. The folks living in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa), represent about 80 percent of the recent total new player sign-ups, and 67 percent of its total gross daily revenue across all of PartyGaming products. The new products include poker, bingo, backgammon, sports betting, and casino games, and the company is expanding into other languages, as well.

Surely this is a misprint and they mean asia and not africa. Even so, they're trying to act like they doing some brilliant market analysis and positioning when all they've done is identify the non-US market as their new market since they can't compete in the US any more. Brilliant.

Strickly Bidness

12-20-2006, 01:18 PM

"EMEA" is often used over there. For example, the EMEA is the acronym for the regulatory agency that models the american "FDA". If you want to get a drug approved in the EU, you must go through the EMEA first. Party didnt make this up. It has little to do with Asia also.

Sciolist

12-20-2006, 01:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party didnt make this up

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, we use it too. My job title is "Poker Operations Manager, EMEA". I just say Europe.

Strickly Bidness

12-20-2006, 01:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party didnt make this up

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, we use it too. My job title is "Poker Operations Manager, EMEA". I just say Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the drug industry i think it stands for European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products, but it gets used for many different organizations over there.

Sniper

12-20-2006, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Surely this is a misprint and they mean asia and not africa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, not a misprint... EMEA is a widely used term to represent Europe, Middle East & Africa.

APAC... is the Asia Pacific region.

A little surprised you aren't up on this terminology Bluff...

ps... Party is certainly not down for the count... they have reestablished themselves as the #2 site... Full Tilt does not seem to be able to keep up with Party's marketing machine. Things could get a bit more interesting after the iPoker transition (absorbing Tain & Tribeca) [creating a strong non-US focused competitor] and if AP/UB decide to merge their player base [solidifying another strong US market competitor].

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2006, 05:17 PM

Sniper,

I just can't see how africa can be a bigger market than asia. Just no way even if you don't count the PRC. They're bigger gamblers and have way more money.

Party's marketing has always been their strongest, and mabye only edge. FT is really screwing up by not aggressively finding workaround ways to advertise to the US, and also to market to euroland like stars does.

But party is is in worse shape than even the numbers suggest. That is because their strategy of selling other gambling game products to the poker player base (and vice versa of course although its less profitable to do so), takes a big hit when their player base does so too. Thus they not only lost 3/4 of their revenue, they lost all the additional future revenue that could have been had marketing -EV games to US poker players.

Strickly Bidness

12-20-2006, 06:31 PM

africa? I guess Kofi Annan and Muhammad Taha have to do something after a long day of slaying in the Darfur region:)

RiverMustelid

12-20-2006, 06:38 PM

EMEA is a standard regional description used by multinationals across industries. For example, I worked for EMEA for PwC.

In that industry it meant Europe in terms of revenues, as it clearly does here too. Its not that anyone thought Africa was a big potential market, it was included for global completeness.

To my mind, looking at Sniper's latest figures, Party has made a stronger bounceback than I would have expected. You only have to look at the arrival of German players on the site to know that their push is having some impact.

Sniper

12-20-2006, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't see how africa can be a bigger market than asia. Just no way even if you don't count the PRC. They're bigger gamblers and have way more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not that its a bigger market, its just that its part of the term (obviously Europe is the largest segment of that regional designator, at the moment) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In any case, having watched the latest 20/20 investigation into Nigerian scammers, and being aware that the Nigerian police are now cracking down on the email scam shops... I understand that Idi is now considering shifting his efforts into the lucrative poker bot arena... surely this will help boost Party traffic from Africa. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

BluffTHIS!

12-20-2006, 07:44 PM

Yes I can see it now. Party's new product offerings: Idi's Opportunities and Idi's Loans. Too bad us yanks won't be able to take advantage of them /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

Strickly Bidness

12-20-2006, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I can see it now. Party's new product offerings: Idi's Opportunities and Idi's Loans. Too bad us yanks won't be able to take advantage of them /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget about Mobutu blackjack and rumble in the jungle roulette:)

PairTheBoard

12-21-2006, 02:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So what am I supposed to do? Quit playing immediately or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite. Play as much as possible while the Playing's good. If Party's wrong, no harm done.

PairTheBoard

MelchyBeau

12-21-2006, 02:32 AM

I think the issue with Asia not being considered a big market is the legality of online gambling there, for instance it is illegal in China, Thailand, and I believe Japan. I also think there may be laws on the books in Australia about this as well.

olivert

12-23-2006, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the issue with Asia not being considered a big market is the legality of online gambling there, for instance it is illegal in China, Thailand, and I believe Japan. I also think there may be laws on the books in Australia about this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

PartyGaming's CEO visited Beijing and Hong Kong two weeks ago.

Obviously, PartyGaming is considering a partnership with the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC), which has a total state-sponsored monopoly on legalized gambling (Horse Racing, Lotto, betting on English Premier League soccer matches) in Hong Kong (though neighborhood Mahjong "schools" are everywhere).

Getting Mainland China to legalize online gaming, even within special economic zones such as Pudong (the east river bank of Shanghai), will be tricky.

MiltonFriedman

12-25-2006, 01:14 AM

Give Mr. Garber a break. Apparently, he came on board at PartyGaming in April .... after leading Firepay. Before that he was apparently a lawyer ?

Of course he is the best person qualified to run the once-World's-Largest-PokerRoom .... right.

How do you make $740,000 per day in profits ..... Well, start out with $2.4 million per day and dance like crazy when your US market evaporates because you failed to throw enough wqeight around in DC in September, 5 months after you take command.

Market discipline is brutal but fair, Mitch. Your shareholders would not touch gaming unless it was publicly traded, the entrepeneurs at PokerStars desrve the market you failed to protect and then fled.

olivert

12-25-2006, 01:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Give Mr. Garber a break. Apparently, he came on board at PartyGaming in April .... after leading Firepay. Before that he was apparently a lawyer ?

Of course he is the best person qualified to run the once-World's-Largest-PokerRoom .... right.

How do you make $740,000 per day in profits ..... Well, start out with $2.4 million per day and dance like crazy when your US market evaporates because you failed to throw enough wqeight around in DC in September, 5 months after you take command.

Market discipline is brutal but fair, Mitch. Your shareholders would not touch gaming unless it was publicly traded, the entrepeneurs at PokerStars desrve the market you failed to protect and then fled.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you know that the likes of PokerStars, Bodog, Absolute, Full Tilt, etc. will still be able to do business in the U.S. once the regulations are implemented? (There is a reason why these sites are all scrambling to build up their European and Canadian player base in the next 6 months.)

Your view is entirely short-term (i.e. 6 months or less), while PartyGaming is taking the long-term (i.e. 3 to 5 years) approach by cleaning itself up so that it can pursue partnerships with the Chinese and Russian governments.

As I said before, the days of a gaming company getting a license in Antigua and being able to market around the world as "legal" is OVER. The U.S., France, Germany, and Ontario province of Canada are all cracking down to one degree or another, while governments in places such as China, Russia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, etc. will make all the rules regarding which gaming company will be explicitly licensed.

"Gaming" is NOT a "free market" business. Never has been. Never will be. The governments make all the rules.

Furthermore, being able to gamble has NEVER been a "right" anywhere in the world (including the U.S.), it has always been a "privilege", i.e. the government can decide who gets to gamble and on what a person can gamble.

PartyGaming has decided that there are much bigger fish to fry than the U.S. market.

MiltonFriedman

12-25-2006, 04:52 PM

With Olivert the only issue is HOW the topic is somehow related to Statism, China and Online Gaming. This topic is NOT.

Olivert, I have NO doubt that Party's exit is looking at "the long term", but question whether the short term sacrifice would have been suffered AT ALL, had Mr. Garber et al paid better attention to their main market and worked a LOT harder to stop the legislation .... THAT is the point of MY post. Why give up about $800 million in revenue if you could stall a bill another year ?

Now, on to yours .... your sense of history is appallingly lacking, as is your knowledge of gamblings role in various societies.

You claim "Gaming" is NOT a "free market" business and that it "Never has been. Never will be." According to you, "the governments make all the rules."

Have you been under a rock for 8 years ? The online sector of gambling has been as close to a free market activity as I can recall. It was only the move of certain firms to self-entanglement with the public capital markets that has caused a hick-up. Those firms which avoided the public captal markets are still thriving. (As for what happens to PStars' levels if the regulations dry up US player funding doesn't make their profits in the interim any less real. 270 x $1.7 million adds up to a lot of business Party left behind.)

Gambling is and will always have a "free market" sector, regadless of government licensing or crackdowns. Free market has to be understod as inclusive of both "legal" and "illegal" activity. A free market is not defined by characteristics of legality or illegality. (Plenty of liquor flowed in the US during Prohibition, to take an obvious example.)

You equate "gambling" with "legal gambling". Sonny, gambling goes on whether it is legal or not. Do you think it doesn't go on in China TODAY, where it is illegal ? Korea ? The United States ?

As for Party's exit from the US market being focussed on development in China and Russia, you could NOT be more mistaken. It was a flight because Party, presumably, has a long term goal of RETURNING to the US. It has nothing to do with China or Russia.

Why does it have NOTHING to do with China or Russia ? Because neither China nor Russia would CARE whether Party had exited the US vis a vis someone like PStars. WHY would you think that either country would shut out a PStars due to US business, you really think they give a rat'sass about UIGE Act ?

(For the record, I happen to think that Asia IS the huge future market for poker, but that is apples and oranges relative ot a Party exit from the US.)

The ONLY benefit of Party exiting the US, after sleeping away $800 million of value on the legislative front, is that it will be able to come back.

Milton

olivert

12-25-2006, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Olivert, I have NO doubt that Party's exit is looking at "the long term", but question whether the short term sacrifice would have been suffered AT ALL, had Mr. Garber et al paid better attention to their main market and worked a LOT harder to stop the legislation .... THAT is the point of MY post. Why give up about $800 million in revenue if you could stall a bill another year ?

Now, on to yours .... your sense of history is appallingly lacking, as is your knowledge of gamblings role in various societies.

You claim "Gaming" is NOT a "free market" business and that it "Never has been. Never will be." According to you, "the governments make all the rules."

Have you been under a rock for 8 years ? The online sector of gambling has been as close to a free market activity as I can recall. It was only the move of certain firms to self-entanglement with the public capital markets that has caused a hick-up. Those firms which avoided the public captal markets are still thriving. (As for what happens to PStars' levels if the regulations dry up US player funding doesn't make their profits in the interim any less real. 270 x $1.7 million adds up to a lot of business Party left behind.)

Gambling is and will always have a "free market" sector, regadless of government licensing or crackdowns. Free market has to be understod as inclusive of both "legal" and "illegal" activity. A free market is not defined by characteristics of legality or illegality. (Plenty of liquor flowed in the US during Prohibition, to take an obvious example.)

You equate "gambling" with "legal gambling". Sonny, gambling goes on whether it is legal or not. Do you think it doesn't go on in China TODAY, where it is illegal ? Korea ? The United States ?

As for Party's exit from the US market being focussed on development in China and Russia, you could NOT be more mistaken. It was a flight because Party, presumably, has a long term goal of RETURNING to the US. It has nothing to do with China or Russia.

Why does it have NOTHING to do with China or Russia ? Because neither China nor Russia would CARE whether Party had exited the US vis a vis someone like PStars. WHY would you think that either country would shut out a PStars due to US business, you really think they give a rat'sass about UIGE Act ?

(For the record, I happen to think that Asia IS the huge future market for poker, but that is apples and oranges relative ot a Party exit from the US.)

The ONLY benefit of Party exiting the US, after sleeping away $800 million of value on the legislative front, is that it will be able to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]

You overlook one thing:

The likes of PokerStars and FullTilt didn't chose to stay private.

They remained private because they didn't get their IPOs out the door fast enough before the door closed.

They also know that they couldn't afford to shut themselves off from the U.S. market during the 270 days between the signing of the UIGEA and the implementation of the regulations.

Otherwise, both PokerStars and FullTilt would resemble ParadisePoker.com, which has turned into a virtual ghost town.

In case you haven't noticed:

1. Bodog has stopped advertising in the US and has evacuated its personnel from Costa Rica to Antigua, where the Antiguan government will NOT carry out extradition orders for online gaming executives. Even "Cole Turner" sees the writing on the wall.

2. Absolute has changed its deposit bonus promotions to favor non-us players, by pushing Visa and Mastercard (which can be used in places such as the UK and eventually Spain and Italy).

Even PokerStars is reducing its US marketing costs for the time being while it waits for the impact of the regulations. Even the new TV ads looked cheaper than the old ones.

You were congratulating the "genius" of PokerStars and FullTilt for staying private. You couldn't have been more wrong. Neither PokerStars nor FullTilt wanted to stay private by choice.

StellarWind

12-26-2006, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
PartyGaming also introduced a new acronym to the world in its release: EMEA. EMEA represents PartyGaming’s future as its most important market. The folks living in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa), represent about 80 percent of the recent total new player sign-ups, and 67 percent of its total gross daily revenue across all of PartyGaming products.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there is a message in what is not here. From the beginning I suspected that the non-U.S. sites were going to experience trouble in the crucial Canadian market and Western hemisphere markets in general. It's hard to provide good game selection for these markets without U.S. players because of the timezone difference. Plus cultural ties between the U.S. and Canada are strong which creates many intangible advantages in Canada for the sites that cater to the U.S. The benefits also tend to compound as market gains lead to more gains thanks to word-of-mouth recruiting and a bolstered affiliate network within a country.

Canadians are wealthy and heavily represented in online poker. I suspect that they are second only to the U.S. as a current source of online gaming revenue. This is not a trivial problem for Party and it is even more serious for smaller sites that may offer very few games during North American prime time.

Sniper

12-26-2006, 03:27 AM

Just to support your position on the importance of Canada... Distribution of origin location for 2+2 visitors...

http://www.big-boards.com/img/graphs/nc1169.png

Nate tha\\\' Great

12-26-2006, 06:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just to support your position on the importance of Canada... Distribution of origin location for 2+2 visitors...

http://www.big-boards.com/img/graphs/nc1169.png

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, 2+2 is an English-language website...

MiltonFriedman

12-26-2006, 09:54 AM

I'll try and explain again ...

Party's fleeing the US as part of a "long term strategy to reenter the US at a later date" made perfect sense, sort of like the Titanic passengers climbing into the lifeboats as part of a "long term strategy to get back to England".

However the Party better course would have been to block the UIGE Act (for say $300 million), rather than hit the iceberg. For that, Mr. Garber's team deserves to be critiqued, especially when he tries to spin away from his abject failure to steer a safe course, losing at least $800 million in the process.

However, Oliver, I see we have totally switched topics again, since you have nothing more to say about China, Russia and Party's gaffe in not fighting the legislation tooth and nail.

Today's new topic is a spin to re-direct the thread to whether Pokerstars and FTP "wanted to stay private". (The answer is clearly no, as both had IPOs in the works. That is kind of irrelevant to anything I posted about the relative risk-adverse Party-come-lately public shareholders.)

As for the "marketing analysis" Oliver offers, that is a non-sequitor, indicate of nothing related to Party's wisdom or not in laying down for the UIGE Act passage or fleeing the market.

1. He ignores Absolute, which has been aggressively promoting its DotNet on television.

2. Fails to appreciate that throwing money at television commercials, rather than sponsored progamming, was already an area of diminishing returns.

3. WHERE does he think the increases at Absolute/UB, PStars and FTP came from .... seems the marketing, whehter private or public has had an effect.

Finally, Oliver is STILL not understanding the difference between a market (an economic concept) and regulation (a legal concept). He is really stuck conceptually on government regulation, citing Spain and Italy as the targets for an Absolute poker campaign favoring MC and VISA depositors. .... (FWIW, a campaign to promote Visa/MC does not ignore the US at all, Oliver. There is such a thing as uncoded transactions. It is more likely aimed at moving US players away from Neteller, a US-specific move.)